3) Alex Storey: "are you trying to run the tool straight from the zipped folder?"
Meaning "did you extract the files to a real folder"
or instead "did you just double-click SetiPerformance_32_64_1_4.zip and run the program/exe"
(I remember in Vista this (the Vista's internal zip handling) was implemented very stupid, don't know how it is in Windows 7)

I completely disagree (unless you mean SFX ZIP/RAR/7z)
- this will make hard/impossible to add/change the apps/WUs

Are you serious?! He has the source code! The idea that it would limit future upgrades is ridiculous.....

I don't see anyone other than Fred making any changes at all to the software? So if he continues to be the only one making changes, again he has the source code and could upgrade as he saw fit, than simply compile a new executable.

I am simple suggesting that the final file to the "public" be a single executable. Making this directory of files into one file in no way limits the future possibility of upgrades.

I completely disagree (unless you mean SFX ZIP/RAR/7z)
- this will make hard/impossible to add/change the apps/WUs

Are you serious?! He has the source code! The idea that it would limit future upgrades is ridiculous.....

I don't see anyone other than Fred making any changes at all to the software? So if he continues to be the only one making changes, again he has the source code and could upgrade as he saw fit, than simply compile a new executable.

I am simple suggesting that the final file to the "public" be a single executable. Making this directory of files into one file in no way limits the future possibility of upgrades.

KISS

Its not the future upgrades which will be limited, its the option for the users to use different WUs for the test and different versions of the SETI apps (that, by the way, are not made by Fred).
If all the required files/data is inside one "compiled" file, then Fred will need to compile a different version of the tool for each new version of the apps... And, worst, it will make the tool useless for other purposes like testing a failed WU in offline mode or to test an unreleased/Beta version of a new app...

I dont know why you are having this issue, and IIRC you used this tool before, so I guess there is something different in one of your hosts, if you really want this tool to become more easy to use, the best thing you can do is to try to help Fred to find what makes it fail so he can fix/change whatever is needed to avoid this in the future.
____________

I thought GTX660 was faster than a GTX560, wonder if we tested using the same WU?

What I see so far is that the 6xx series is actually slower on the g.
It has more cuda cores but they are less capable.

The Beta Z series suggest that the 6xx series will be a bit faster with that program version.

I ran the automatic test, which runs x41g thats included in the archive. In real life I use x41z cuda42 app.

The cards are also running Einstein apps which would appear to be running through in 40 min (average) compared with 46 min (average) from the 560Ti that they replaced. Their app is a cuda32 one. So its not fantastically faster but then it uses 30 watts less and is still a bit faster than the 560Ti.
____________BOINC blog

Fixed: Progress indicator dropped back to 0.
- Partially fixed (for AP): it shows and do not drop back to 0 but now stays at 11% till task end

Not fixed: Count actually run is one more than the selected by the drop down box:
(the same problem happened (I reported it before) with previous versions with <maxAutoCount>3</maxAutoCount>
Now I replaced this with <showMaxCount>1</showMaxCount> and selected 0.33 from the GUI)

1)Fixed: Progress indicator dropped back to 0.
- Partially fixed (for AP): it shows and do not drop back to 0 but now stays at 11% till task end

2) Not fixed: Count actually run is one more than the selected by the drop down box:
(the same problem happened (I reported it before) with previous versions with <maxAutoCount>3</maxAutoCount>
Now I replaced this with <showMaxCount>1</showMaxCount> and selected 0.33 from the GUI)

1) If you can send me the file every time it's update I can check what's going on. All files that appear while processing.
2) OK.
____________TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.

1)Fixed: Progress indicator dropped back to 0.
- Partially fixed (for AP): it shows and do not drop back to 0 but now stays at 11% till task end

2) Not fixed: Count actually run is one more than the selected by the drop down box:
(the same problem happened (I reported it before) with previous versions with <maxAutoCount>3</maxAutoCount>
Now I replaced this with <showMaxCount>1</showMaxCount> and selected 0.33 from the GUI)

1) If you can send me the file every time it's update I can check what's going on. All files that appear while processing.
2) OK.

According to the developer, the AP application can't give a progress....
But I made some changes anyway.
____________TThrottle Control your temperatures. BoincTasks The best way to view BOINC. Anza Borrego Desert hiking.

All from original SetiPerformance_32_64_1_6.zip
+ 5 OpenCL tests: ATI (MB and AP) and NVIDIA AP
+ 2 my 'apps' to test SetiPerformance decisions for "The best average time found"
(Edited config.xml accordingly)

! Edit: First click on the link will open a page in a new tab - just close the tab and use again the above 'Direct link' from here

(I give 'Direct link' and not the usual: http://www.datafilehost.com/download-be9d6904.html
because yesterday I found that datafilehost.com started to use/offer some stupid/adware "download manager"
(NOD32 pop-up orange warning about PUP for this "download manager")

Again yesterday Unchecking "Use our download manager and get recommended downloads" in Firefox did not have any effect
(meaning the "Download: Click Here" lead to the same long link (http://www.storagenl.info/.....) despite the check box)
Now in Opera the check box have effect (the "Download: Click Here" changes to the above 'Direct link' (which I in fact extracted yesterday manually from the long link))

For me the 'Direct link' works Directly ;)

If it does not work for you:
- first open the usual link (in case it sets some temporary cookie or other means to avoid direct linking): http://www.datafilehost.com/download-be9d6904.html
- then use the 'Direct link' above
)

(as usual with programs it appears that the 'Simple' is better, the other 'app' (Progress) is just more 'fancy' ;) )

=== === ===

Note:
I consider all these SETI@home apps 'Freely available' because:

- Anyone that is attached to SETI@home (and uses stock apps, and have capable GPU) will get/download automatically from the SETI@home servers
the same AstroPulse OpenCL ATI/NVIDIA apps as included here (compare the stock .exe files with the optimized if you don't believe me)

- Anyone can attach to SETI@home Beta and get (the same way: from SETI@home servers) the Beta apps:
setiathome_6.99_windows_intelx86__opencl_ati_sah.exe (== MB OpenCL ATi r1643) (which is a newer version of MB6_win_x86_SSE3_OpenCL_ATi_r390)
x41z (not included in 'my' combined package) (the .exe properties say: "Copyright (c) 2012, Jason Richard Groothuis bSc, All Rights Reserved", Original File name: Lunatics_x41z_win32_cuda42.exe)

- Some of the apps are still available on the Lunatics site, e.g.:
AP 6.01 r555 ATI OpenCL
Cuda Multibeam x41g

Hello Fred, thank you very much for the program i use it from the first version you release.
I want to ask you which driver you use to complete 130sec for WU for GTX 295 and which WU from the list because my top time with 3 drivers tested same clock everything the same the best time for Core755/Shaders1655/Mem1255 is 188-190 sec with x41g for wu.
and my max settings are 805/1733/1255 the time for PG0444_v7 unit need 179 sec.
____________